DW – making an exuberant entrance!
Tonight I’m going to be reviewing a commentary on the previous (as in before today's) Presidential debate. It was
written by Eileen Smith of “in the Pink” (y’all can check out her commentary
here à The Ties that Binder us). I think in order to analyze this commentary
we must perform a brief and rudimentary (that’s with a capital RUDE!) analysis of
satire. Satire is a form of rhetoric that
uses sarcasm and irony to expose both faults and folly alike. Often, political satire seems to be used as a
means to expose particular portions of candidates’ rhetoric; perhaps, also, as
a means to parse candidates’ language.
In that sense, Eileen Smith is accurate to a fault. I enjoyed her article. Her unique, self-deprecating
brand of satire is emotionally elevating.
I find myself jiggling with joviality.
Now, shall we crack down on critiquing? Eileen Smith,
henceforth the ominously ambiguous – The Author, directs most of her rants to a
particular brand of women and liberal folk; particularly folk with a sense of
humor that are not violently offended by her tone and language. In this sense, and in regard to this article,
I believe she’s right on the money. She
addresses a gaff with appropriate accuracy and context (more so than most
gaff-trackers). The language in her
ridicule is decidedly contra-Romney and would make any Solid Liberal coo with a
pleasure.
Because this commentary is highly subjective, credibility is
not necessarily an appropriate tool with which to analyze this commentary;
however, we can look at The Author’s credibility. I will go so far as to say that The Author
understands when it is appropriate to give her readers context and evidence so
she does not appear to be whimsically and capriciously changing facts to suit
her vile liberal agenda. I think this behavior makes her
more credible. Her appropriate attention
to those aforementioned details is a boon in her commentaries; it suggests a
sharp mind and gives credibility to her articles.
Logic is another questionably useful analytical tool (my
toolbox seems to have some strange instruments inside of it!). The nature of this article is that it follows
a gaff. I believe The Author's ‘logic’ is hidden
in her satire. You must ask yourself
what information, or lesson, is she trying to impart to the reader? I believe a very superficial function is to
show us that some of these fields of work are still highly male dominated. Most of Romney’s other language is just fluff
– not much there after you parse it down.
On a deeper level her satire serves to demonstrate the weaknesses in
Romney’s stance and the language he chose.
I believe her logic, or rather the flow of her satire, illustrates her
point nicely. I will be sure to read her
commentaries more often and I recommend y’all to do the same.
DW...Signing
out.
